I love the part about defending marriage to preserve Constitutional order... except that in doing so, they want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, since the Constitution doesn't, you know say what they want it to say regarding this...

They try to imply a lot of their garbage is somehow "Constitutiony". lol

If you have an ounce of honesty in your body, you'll say the exact same thing about them.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

If you have an ounce of honesty in your body, you'll say the exact same thing about them.

Yes, because they are exactly the same, both corrupt in the exact same way, equal footing, through and through.

Grow up.

__________________"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Figured... And you conveniently glossed over some real improvements in the GOP platform...

“Many of the amendments our campaign fought for were included in the new GOP platform,” Paul campaign manager John Tate said in an email to supporters Wednesday. “Four years ago, many politicians in both parties scoffed at our efforts to audit the Federal Reserve. Now it’s in the Republican Platform – along with internet freedom, war only under a Congressional declaration, support for a gold commission, and fighting back against domestic drones.”

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

I love the part about defending marriage to preserve Constitutional order... except that in doing so, they want to pass a Constitutional Amendment, since the Constitution doesn't, you know say what they want it to say regarding this...

They try to imply a lot of their garbage is somehow "Constitutiony". lol

Can't wait to see the Dem platform.

"wow"?

They disagree with you on your main issue, which you already knew. This is surprising, shocking (shocking I say!) and means they are extremists, for only an extremist would or could ever dare to disagree with the mighty you!

Why have you become so childish? Just disagree with them. It doesn't make them evil. Thinking so DOES make you exactly like all the ones you HATE who think you are evil and dangerous for your beliefs.

I like the Fed Reserve audit change. There are just a lot of other really substantial planks that are extremist.

The personhood plank wanting to completely ban abortions, no exemptions.

The religious change to impsoe discrimination.

A plank to roll back Obamacare, no provision of its protections and thrusting people into the market who can't afford healthcare and what wasn't working before.

The tax section looks like a Christmas list for the wealthy.

Medicare is terrible.

They make no mention of defense cuts, but instead want to expand spending, blaming the Constitution mentioning defense as a legitimate role of government (which it certainly is)... but give me a break.

There are just a lot of parts that are clearly extremist. I am sure the Dem platform will be too, but I haven't seen it yet.

As an aside... I was thinking about the desire to eliminate taxes on capital gains and such. I actually think that I might like the idea if they eliminated taxes for capital gains on wholly domestic owned companies and wholly domestic owned subsidiaries.

Since the justification for the elimination of taxation is domestic investment, I think they should do that, and tax all capital gains and investment income from foreign owned companies and subsidiaries (as well as any percentage of foreign owned portions of domestic companies) at ordinary levels. This would be paired with the elimination of subsidies (corporate welfare), and elimination of tax havens, offshore tax credits, and corporate tax loops. Probably also lowering the corporate tax rates. Oh, and 100 percent death tax and elimination of tax shelters and trusts, since there is no right to bequeath or inheritance given in the Constitution. However, you could gift your wealth as you see fit during your life and an increase in the tax exempt gift allowance to a percentage of your AGI for the tax year. (Along with an increase in the tax credit amount for charitable donations).

They disagree with you on your main issue, which you already knew. This is surprising, shocking (shocking I say!) and means they are extremists, for only an extremist would or could ever dare to disagree with the mighty you!

Why have you become so childish? Just disagree with them. It doesn't make them evil. Thinking so DOES make you exactly like all the ones you HATE who think you are evil and dangerous for your beliefs.

Is that who you really want to be like? THAT is an extremist.

Changing the Constitution to enshrine religious discriminatory beliefs is what I consider dangerous. Outlawing abortions with zero consideration for circumstance or health of the mother is what I consider dangerous.

Having differing views is just part of civil discourse. They certainly have a right to those views... but fortunately, the nominee even recognizes that some of those views are extreme. (Such as no exemption for rape/incest/health of the mother issues on abortion)

You can claim these aren't "extremist" views, and try to characterize my remarks as simply the product of disagreement if you want. When the nominee ignores certain parts because they are too extreme and overrides the views of the VP (who does hold those extremist views), you know they don't sit well with the general electorate. Also, you can try to characterize a Consitutional Amendment as not extreme... but I consider an Amendment of any kind at this point extreme. It is going to be the result of either extreme unforseen circumstances, or extremist ideology.

Changing the Constitution to enshrine religious discriminatory beliefs is what I consider dangerous.

What about ignoring the Constitution and your Constitutionally appointed role? I haven't seen you get in the least bit indignant of that. And that's far more dangerous.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

What about ignoring the Constitution and your Constitutionally appointed role? I haven't seen you get in the least bit indignant of that. And that's far more dangerous.

In what capacity? I am pretty sure there are a couple charges against Obama regarding this.

If you are referring to not defending what he believes to be an Unconstitutional law.... then that doesn't violate his oath to uphold the Constitution imo. If you are referring to other programmatic related issues, then you will have to clarify. His refusal to defend DOMA is absolutely nothing compared to something like the Emancipation Proclamation. DOMA is a direct violation of States Rights. Republicans know this, which is why they want a Constitutional Amendment. So, no conflict there.

In what capacity? I am pretty sure there are a couple charges against Obama regarding this.

If you are referring to not defending what he believes to be an Unconstitutional law.... then that doesn't violate his oath to uphold the Constitution imo. If you are referring to other programmatic related issues, then you will have to clarify. His refusal to defend DOMA is absolutely nothing compared to something like the Emancipation Proclamation. DOMA is a direct violation of States Rights. Republicans know this, which is why they want a Constitutional Amendment. So, no conflict there.

I was actually referring to the Dream Act Executive order and the waivers on the No Child Left Behind act. And if Bush ignored laws he didn't like, you would have screamed your head off, so keep in mind that you've said this. I'll be using it against you when Romney is president.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

I was actually referring to the Dream Act Executive order and the waivers on the No Child Left Behind act. And if Bush ignored laws he didn't like, you would have screamed your head off, so keep in mind that you've said this. I'll be using it against you when Romney is president.

Oh, I don't like the DREAM ACT executive order, although since it doesn't grant citizenship it's not a Constitional issue, imo. It is also leniency that the GOP had supported for these specific cases... before... It is just a limited deferral. Reagan gave amnesty. Do I have a huge issue with that? Not really.

Bush ignored a lot of Constitutional things with the Patriot Act, imo. Obama has continued much of that. I have major issues with him on that end of things. Drone strikes on US citizens for example. In fact, the worst offenses imo are not only the continuation of Bush offenses but expanding them further with this "War on Terror" crap.

Oh, I don't like the DREAM ACT executive order, although since it doesn't grant citizenship it's not a Constitional issue, imo. It is also leniency that the GOP had supported for these specific cases... before... It is just a limited deferral. Reagan gave amnesty. Do I have a huge issue with that? Not really.

Bush ignored a lot of Constitutional things with the Patriot Act, imo. Obama has continued much of that. I have major issues with him on that end of things. Drone strikes on US citizens for example. In fact, the worst offenses imo are not only the continuation of Bush offenses but expanding them further with this "War on Terror" crap.

It's a Constitutional issue in that Obama doesn't have the authority to make laws.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

It's a Constitutional issue in that Obama doesn't have the authority to make laws.

What law did he make? A temporary deferral is a law? Congress refused to act, so he acted in a limited fashion with authority granted the government and not in contradiction to legislative intent to reform...In fact, he even acted in a way that up until it was Barack Obama doing it, the GOP and Dems had both agreed was appropriate (leniency for these groups)...and did not take an action regarding citizenship that was beyond the Presidential authority.

Was it reaching the limits of executive order power? Yes. Unconstitutional, I don't think so. Just very ambitious.

What law did he make? A temporary deferral is a law? Congress refused to act, so he acted in a limited fashion with authority granted the government and not in contradiction to legislative intent to reform...In fact, he even acted in a way that up until it was Barack Obama doing it, the GOP and Dems had both agreed was appropriate (leniency for these groups)...and did not take an action regarding citizenship that was beyond the Presidential authority.

Was it reaching the limits of executive order power? Yes. Unconstitutional, I don't think so. Just very ambitious.

Except that you ignore a few points:

The Dream Act was defeated TWICE in Congress. What is called 'Comprehensive Reform' was also defeated.
This was after the US PEOPLE made it very clear they wanted the existing laws enforced.
IE Deport people who are here illegally regardless of the Prez's personal opinion.

Congress has NOT 'refused to act' (your words)
Obama has refused to consider any legislation that does not permit amnesty for existing illegals.
The majority of the citizens do NOT want that. They want the illegals to 'GO AWAY'

That means the Prez acted in defiance of the Congress and the expressed will of the people.
Worse, he didnt do it out of compassion, he did it to PANDER.

We will get the fence, and we will get zero infiltration. We will have to see if Romney keeps his word.
Hopefully, the illegals will leave.
If not, they are in for a very hard time.

__________________
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

With respect to the notion that I could suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know we have three branches of government. Congresses passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the law. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me through simply an executive order ignore those mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions that emphasize enforcement on those who have engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate or propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair...more just and ultimately would help young people do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country

..which he then clarified a year or so before his executive order with:

The notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things is just not true. What we can do is to prioritize enforcement — since there are limited enforcement resources — and say, we’re not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who has been acting responsibly, and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.

Nice yellow journalism going on and sound bite grabbing, but just not true. It doesn't mean what he did was okay, of course....but just more of the same mudslinging and lies.

Jon Stewart... jeez. When will these "news" outlets stop pretending and just call themselves tabloids and tabloid shows?

The story here is how he is using "enforcement"... and is it going too far. He intentionally left his initial remark a bit open ended (lawyer speak, I am sure)... so this "gotcha" crap is wrong, but more importantly ignores the real issue here: What wouldn't qualify under his interpretation? Are we looking at "enforcement" with DOMA? Now with immigration? What is beyond his executive power when looking at legislative power through a lens of his proposed authority of enforcement? Are there agencies beyond his control that could be enforcing these regardless of his order? Perhaps agencies under Congress, and not the Executive? I think that is a more interesting and fundamental Constitutional issue.

Regardless, the DNC starts today and I can't wait to see what they roll out! I am waiting to see if they want to nationalize oil!

Guess what? God’s name has been removed from the Democratic National Committee platform.
This is the paragraph that was in the 2008 platform:“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

Now the words “God-given” have been removed. The paragraph has been restructured to say this:

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Well, at least they didn't change it to "government-given potential".... I wouldn't put it past them. I am shocked they didn't say anything about being "entitled" or "deserving" to succeed or something.

“We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that [...] simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.”

Bargain? The only bargain we made was called the social contract. A Democrat wouldn't know what that is. The Party has replaced it with some sort of bargain between the rich and the poor or employer and employee.

And by the way, does no one else see the irony in the more liberal-leaning party promising to return us to the good old days?

I hope some day that gay marriage is made legal, but that the president doesn't allow it due to enforcement... Just to give Pinko here a little perspective on the bullshit he's slinging.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

I hope some day that gay marriage is made legal, but that the president doesn't allow it due to enforcement... Just to give Pinko here a little perspective on the bullshit he's slinging.

I wonder how that would look, actually. I guess it could be not enforced in the provision of benefits. I could see that happening, actually.

I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, although if it was legal, that would be a huge step and fix most issues. As far as not enforcing recognition in government agencies, etc... I don't know. I am sure it would end up in court. It's an interesting thing to consider. Although I guess you could say that it is legal in some states, but others don't enforce it, which is similiar, but not the same. That is certainly annoying. I guess the difference is that in both cases, you are not the one subject to the punitive nature of the law. Maybe in the situation you present, I am more sympathetic because I know what it is like to be denied rights. Maybe if I looked from a position of advantage, I would feel differently. Maybe then I could distance myself from people who have lived their entire lives here or who fought in the military for this country and view them as criminals or "others". I just don't feel that way. I guess I don't believe people should be punished for the sins of their fathers.

I have a friend that was smuggled to the US in the trunk of a car when he was a very little kid (maybe 4 years old). He wasn't doing anything wrong. He didn't have a choice. He has lived here, worked here, and known no other home his whole life. Now at the age of 32, do I think he should be deported? Hell no.

Do I believe in border enforcement? Yes. Do I believe in a wall? Sure, if it will work. (Although statistics are now showing many Mexicans leaving the US back to Mexico)... do I have any problem with stronger immigration enforcement and closing our borders? No.

What I have a problem with is demonization (a favorite tool of the right) and a compassion-free solution to a complex issue that affects real people. For a party of religion, the Republicans have no trouble with soul-less policies.

(And FYI, for "perspective"... I worked for several years with the Family Re-Unification Project, a program designed to help get families who were split between the US and Mexico documentation to live here together again. I have seen parents and children split up because of our policies. I have seen how hard it is and how long ti can take for a mother or father to be able to get back to thier families. So thank you for your idea of "perspective", but I think I have a decent idea of what really happens. I am sure you have some similiar personal experiences beyond Fox and your self righteous indignation about the brown invaders.)

I wonder how that would look, actually. I guess it could be not enforced in the provision of benefits. I could see that happening, actually.

I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, although if it was legal, that would be a huge step and fix most issues. As far as not enforcing recognition in government agencies, etc... I don't know. I am sure it would end up in court. It's an interesting thing to consider. Although I guess you could say that it is legal in some states, but others don't enforce it, which is similiar, but not the same. That is certainly annoying. I guess the difference is that in both cases, you are not the one subject to the punitive nature of the law. Maybe in the situation you present, I am more sympathetic because I know what it is like to be denied rights. Maybe if I looked from a position of advantage, I would feel differently. Maybe then I could distance myself from people who have lived their entire lives here or who fought in the military for this country and view them as criminals or "others". I just don't feel that way. I guess I don't believe people should be punished for the sins of their fathers.

I have a friend that was smuggled to the US in the trunk of a car when he was a very little kid (maybe 4 years old). He wasn't doing anything wrong. He didn't have a choice. He has lived here, worked here, and known no other home his whole life. Now at the age of 32, do I think he should be deported? Hell no.

Do I believe in border enforcement? Yes. Do I believe in a wall? Sure, if it will work. (Although statistics are now showing many Mexicans leaving the US back to Mexico)... do I have any problem with stronger immigration enforcement and closing our borders? No.

What I have a problem with is demonization (a favorite tool of the right) and a compassion-free solution to a complex issue that affects real people. For a party of religion, the Republicans have no trouble with soul-less policies.

(And FYI, for "perspective"... I worked for several years with the Family Re-Unification Project, a program designed to help get families who were split between the US and Mexico documentation to live here together again. I have seen parents and children split up because of our policies. I have seen how hard it is and how long ti can take for a mother or father to be able to get back to thier families. So thank you for your idea of "perspective", but I think I have a decent idea of what really happens. I am sure you have some similiar personal experiences beyond Fox and your self righteous indignation about the brown invaders.)

Your position ignores that the problem was created NOT by the USA, but by the CRIMINALS that decided to come here.
No matter how badly they feel they are being treated, the situation would NOT exist if they had stayed in their home countries.

One person/family/situation ... sure you can be compassionate. 30 million? NO.
That is a cancer growing from within, fed by the outside. AND it never ends. They all got amnesty from Reagan.
It accomplished NOTHING.
Then they try to BLACKMAIL our political leaders to FORCE us to allow even more to come here.
That is exactly what they are doing now. California is a lost cause. It will have to be conquered by the federal
government, and re-taken, to allow the measures that are needed.

The country either belongs to its citizens, and NOT to the illegals, or it is an easy doormat.
Those are the two choices. Our own country, or another Mexico.

__________________
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”

Voltaire

'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'

Your position ignores that the problem was created NOT by the USA, but by the CRIMINALS that decided to come here.
No matter how badly they feel they are being treated, the situation would NOT exist if they had stayed in their home countries.

One person/family/situation ... sure you can be compassionate. 30 million? NO.
That is a cancer growing from within, fed by the outside. AND it never ends. They all got amnesty from Reagan.
It accomplished NOTHING.
Then they try to BLACKMAIL our political leaders to FORCE us to allow even more to come here.
That is exactly what they are doing now. California is a lost cause. It will have to be conquered by the federal
government, and re-taken, to allow the measures that are needed.

The country either belongs to its citizens, and NOT to the illegals, or it is an easy doormat.
Those are the two choices. Our own country, or another Mexico.

You could say that. Or you could say that it was caused by the USA, through ineffective policies and enforcement. In any case, the situation is what it is, and the priority should be closing the borders and preventing the problem from continuing. The ones that are here are here. Whatever effect they will have, they are having. There's no point trying to bucket water out of a sinking ship, we need to plug the holes. Once that is done, then we can look at who should stay or go... but considering the glacial pace of government, I doubt it will matter... it will be a generation or two too late.

I wonder how that would look, actually. I guess it could be not enforced in the provision of benefits. I could see that happening, actually.

I certainly wouldn't be happy about it, although if it was legal, that would be a huge step and fix most issues. As far as not enforcing recognition in government agencies, etc... I don't know. I am sure it would end up in court. It's an interesting thing to consider. Although I guess you could say that it is legal in some states, but others don't enforce it, which is similiar, but not the same. That is certainly annoying. I guess the difference is that in both cases, you are not the one subject to the punitive nature of the law. Maybe in the situation you present, I am more sympathetic because I know what it is like to be denied rights. Maybe if I looked from a position of advantage, I would feel differently. Maybe then I could distance myself from people who have lived their entire lives here or who fought in the military for this country and view them as criminals or "others". I just don't feel that way. I guess I don't believe people should be punished for the sins of their fathers.

I have a friend that was smuggled to the US in the trunk of a car when he was a very little kid (maybe 4 years old). He wasn't doing anything wrong. He didn't have a choice. He has lived here, worked here, and known no other home his whole life. Now at the age of 32, do I think he should be deported? Hell no.

Do I believe in border enforcement? Yes. Do I believe in a wall? Sure, if it will work. (Although statistics are now showing many Mexicans leaving the US back to Mexico)... do I have any problem with stronger immigration enforcement and closing our borders? No.

What I have a problem with is demonization (a favorite tool of the right) and a compassion-free solution to a complex issue that affects real people. For a party of religion, the Republicans have no trouble with soul-less policies.

(And FYI, for "perspective"... I worked for several years with the Family Re-Unification Project, a program designed to help get families who were split between the US and Mexico documentation to live here together again. I have seen parents and children split up because of our policies. I have seen how hard it is and how long ti can take for a mother or father to be able to get back to thier families. So thank you for your idea of "perspective", but I think I have a decent idea of what really happens. I am sure you have some similiar personal experiences beyond Fox and your self righteous indignation about the brown invaders.)

... soooo you want to change the law.

Cool.

But everything you've written has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Nice of you to completely miss the point.

__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein